For Aperture Users

I have been a long time Aperture User. I also own my own copy (glad I did) of Photoshop CS6.
Aperture will function for a good long while, love the program, but don't mind switching now that the writing is on the wall.
I wasn't aware of all the "cloud" changes/focus of Adobe. This is new to me. I took the plunge two days ago with the $9.95 option. Wasn't happy with $120/year to borrow a program, but figured there must be some reason this works.
Now that I've used LR for a day, played with it, I better understand it. I've watched it from a distance grow over the years. Attended photoshop conferences and heard about it, figured I might buy it some day.
That day has come.
I've already got my refund coming. Here's why Adobe.
#1 - as an Aperture User, I don't understand your terminology. When I read what would happen if I decided to quit paying you money, I had no point of reference to understand exactly what that meant. Figured it didn't matter.
#2 - loaded up the program, imported pics, started learning. Started having fun. Suddenly it hit me: I lose the key functionality I need if I quit paying Adobe money. I realized what that word "develop" meant.
#3 - once I realized that I would basically have a program that doesn't do much of anything, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't figure out what it would do other than slideshow, share with Facebook, etc (other programs do that much for free)...what would Lightroom do if I quit paying Adobe money?
#4 - Now that I realize what is happening, I can't keep going forward, it would be irrational. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. Clarify please. I'm willing to pay for software, always have. My wallet hurt buying the full version of CS6.
#5 - Here's the crux of what I don't think Adobe is taking into consideration with the pay forever or lose functionality model:
        - I was diagnosed with cancer in 2008. Beat it.
        - I was diagnosed with cancer again a few months ago, stem cell transplant, chemo, going to beat it.
        - LIFE PRESENTS CHANGES AND PROBLEMS. I realize you guys are rich and expect us all to just pay forever, but there are twists and turns that come in life. I am scaling down to save money while temporarily on disability. Lets say I have to stay on disability (which I won't, I work and will work unless I die) and am presented with a difficult life circumstance, I've paid $120 or more for a program I can't do anything with.
Does this sound even logical? Why not offer to those who desire, the ability to purchase Lightroom upright. Just buy it. I'm willing to pay. I suddenly see this pay forever or else model as a rip off. If life takes a cruel turn, and trust me as a 49 year old hard working man who has paid his dues, life can get unfair at times. What are you going to do for a loyal customer Adobe? Just disable my program and not care?
Think about it. Just think about it. Maybe after a person pays a normal fair price, they could fully own the right to normal functionality, no more updates, and not be penalized for not paying forever. I don't need all the syncing and other nice features. Those are great and progressive, but what about just a photo management program that allows for RAW processing/editing?
I don't understand the advantage of a pay forever model, with the exception to how it pads Adobe's wallet. Otherwise, as an end user, I'm screwed by another large corporation. At least Apple let me have my program and said they will keep it running for a while.

First of all, you're not talking to Adobe here, most of us are not Adobe employees and the few that are can't change the marketing policies.
Secondly, as David__B has explained, you can still buy Lightroom, own it forever, no monthly fees.
Thirdly, if your only view of Lightroom is an editor, then yes, if you stop paying the subscription, you can no longer edit your photos (but you do not lose the edits you made to photos before you stopped paying). If you think of Lightroom as a digital asset management program, you can still use it as that (even if you stop paying the subscription); you can also export your photos or distribute them via Print, Web, Slideshow or Publish methods, so the work you have done in the past is not lost in any way.
Does this sound even logical?
No, your facts are wrong.

Similar Messages

  • A workaround for Aperture users to use .Mac Web Gallery

    As a user who recently switched to Aperture - I was hugely disappointed seeing some amazing new photo-related features in iLife '08 not available for Aperture users. Let alone the cash for purchasing software suites, I can't convince myself switching back to iPhoto for a single feature. So I googled and searched around...
    Some pre-requisite for the workaround: You must have iLife '08, Aperture and .Mac installed.
    _*Solution 1*_
    Create an album in Aperture that contains the images you want to upload to your .Mac Web Gallery. In iPhoto '08, create an empty library, then File > Show Aperture Library, choose the album and import images from there.
    The downside of this is the images are your Versions in preview quality.
    _*Solution 2*_
    Export Versions from Aperture and import the images to iPhoto and perform the upload.
    _*Solution 3*_
    For users building websites in iWeb, I have seen threads that one could use the media browser in iLife suite to perform similar result but it also limits to the preview quality of Aperture.
    I would have to say even the workaround is hugely disappointed but I can't see any other solutions at the moment. I couldn't recall my last ocassion on having such disappointment for Apple's software development.

    Apple really needs to rev. Aperture so it sends photos directly to the new .Mac Web Galleries.
    Everyone needs to go here:
    http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html
    And voice there opinion there to get this added to Aperture.
    Thanks, Scott K.

  • Exporting From LR For Aperture User

    I second shoot weddings frequently for an Apple/Aperture user friend of mine...I'm PC and LR all the way (using LR5).
    I typically just dump my RAW files on a DVD or flash drive and let him edit mine in his workflow.  I'd like to provide him with edited files though to save him a little time on his end.
    Is it feasible to export my DNG files out of LR w/ my edits intact, in a format comptible with Aperture?  If all else fails, I can just give him the DNGs with a separetd folder of edited JPEGs...But wanted to check first to see if anyone has had success with this export/import process in the past.

    I can probably answer myself.... I overlooked the new "complete toning in Camera Raw" button!!!!!

  • Forums for Aperture Users?

    While this discussion is good for bugs, issues and the technical side of things, there's very little in the way of tips and tricks, photos, settings, presets, etc. That is, the actual results of working in Aperture and the best ways to achieve them. Where do Aperture users congregate apart from here? Thanks!

    The only one I know of is the Aperture Users group on Flickr. I wish there was more though!

  • Time Machine warning for Aperture users

    I guess some people here will be using Aperture and Leopard.
    See this:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1017&message=25380995
    Hard to believe really.
    AC

    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1197983&start=15&tstart=0
    does this affect iphoto users as well? i don't think so.
    thanks.

  • Icc profiles for aperture book printing...

    Do the Aperture Book Printing folks provide icc profiles so I can soft-proof the images beforehand?

    Please note that monitors provide fairly accurate color when the images are saved in an sRGB color space, however, presses are not as reliable...
    Well, Mike, thanks for sharing the info here.
    At one point, in Mark's email to you, as mentioned above in his email from Apple, I have to say I am a little surprised about his statement re: monitors provide fairly accurate... when the images saved in an sRGB colour space...
    It is very tricky statement where it depends on how we define the term "fairly accurate" in monitors. What we don't know if Mark meant by when monitor has been "properly" set up as profiled and calibrated with high-grade calibration hardware. Unless IF the monitor has been proper profiled and calibrated, then his statement would be correct. But IF not profiled or calibrated at all, I am afraid that his statement is incorrect.
    Now these days with newer monitors and newer Apple laptops with better monitor technology, it is still need to be properly profiled and calibrated. It just depends on individual's preference, desire and the purpose of such project whatever someone is working on. While majority of Aperture users' are probably mostly professional photographers or those who are into photography savvy, then colour-managed workflow is a norm. For me, it IS absolute A MUST colour-managed workflow.
    Although, I do a heavy post-production workflow on MacPro where I always have my monitors calibrated. I don't typically calibrate my laptop, though. Because sometimes I forgot to turn off the automatic ambient light in System Preference in Display section. It is a little inconvenience in that case. Unless if I am being away on photographic trips far from Canada abroad, then it is a different story. But not always bring my calibration device with me. Too inconvenience to haul it around at the airports etc. So colour-managed workflow is a must with MacPro in my studio.
    However, other individuals have their own preference, comfort zone and the purpose of such project. Perhaps their workflow set up differently than yours or mine, that is ok.
    But in that email you received from someone at Apple didn't make it clear about that statement about 'fairly accuracy'.
    Then something else is something else actually--when Apple guy said presses are not always.... Again, that is why it is important that you get monitor properly profiled and calibrated. Once it is done properly, then it is all good. But remember, you need to re-calibrate monitor once a week or every two weeks or once month. In order to get pretty close to printed output, always a good idea to soft proof. If needed to make slightly conservative adjustments to your satisfaction or level of expectation, the output would be fairly close to what it is appeared in monitor. When I mean "fairly close" in comparing the output to what you are seeing in monitor with these post-production images used in that output, in fairness, I would estimate fairly close in terms of anywhere in range between 92 to 95 percent - that is very fair conservative perspective on how close in the output vs monitor. It is truly, really, truly rare to get the output 100% as obvious and precise as you are seeing in monitor. If that is the case, and if that is true FOR that person achieved this, this probably means takes that person many years to perfect his/her colour-managed workflow for that matter. Never has been that pretty close, but I'd be shocked if I see mine aced right on spot. I'd be lying to you if I get all output perfect as appeared in my monitors. If I did, that would be incorrect statement.
    It seems a lot of factors and things to do and things need to require in a thoroughly colour-managed workflow production, it is how it is done. But this can also means save money, effort and time if done properly right from the beginning.
    In fairness, I would really wish that guy from Apple should have said a little more obvious and precise with his definition of fairly accuracy with monitors. It doesn't says what kind of monitors he refers to. Low quality, cheap monitors deliver good results? Lot of factors need to be looked at for consideration for yourself.
    Of course, as you can tell that colour management topic is pretty heavy, highly technical and everything in deep thinking with world of colours. It takes years for an individual (both pros and non-pro individuals) finally understand what it is all about. Again, technologies evolve rapid for the better in many cases for new monitors, commercial print equips, advanced ink technology, advanced paper production technology... That goes on effortless endless, actually.
    Hope some of thoughtfu perspective and experience be of some interest, and it is obvious that this discussion probably will attract some more excitement discussion, the more the better. So that every other Aperture users who have the similar issues, they'll definitely want to come to here... And learn and share.
    I also use Blurb too. They are getting better than it was once a couple years ago when Blurb first started. As they add more variety of book sizes, types of paper stock and things like that. This also give someone some flexibility in choosing workflow production using Blurb software or online bookmaking or using PDF to Book service for those who are advanced users that use InDesign layout design app. In that case of PDF to Book, the advanced users would need to download Blurb's preset plug-in to put in InDesign in order to export the PDF output to meet and integrate into Blurb's Preflight Checklist at the time of upload. I use PDF to Book service with InDesign, etc. It is fairly self explanatory and easy to follow steps. Also slightly off topic, but when making Blurb book, to get most out of their product and service with Blurb, in that case, they came up with brilliant resource called Colour Resource Centre designed for making more beautiful books. In that resource centre, it is easy to read and follow.
    I would think this probably shed some insights and understanding the basics of colour management, the whole thing all about this, that and the other all together.
    I would also want other high-powered hard-core Aperture users share their experience with Aperture Book printing service. I'd be happy to share my experience about making Aperture Book vs. Blurb Book through PDF to Book service. However, I would think the export to PDF from Aperture probably has it's own different setting or slightly different configuration inside the PDF engine on Mac for Blurb book. There has been some discussion about wanting a Aperture Plug In for Blurb Book. blurb has been quiet on it, I take that they probably will not develop a special plug-in for Aperture Users. Sorry if it is a little off topic. But somehow someone in the discussion mention Blurb. so...
    Anyhow, hope that helps.

  • 27" iMac upgrade priorities for Aperture use?

    I am about to pull the trigger on a new iMac 27". Current Aperture librabry is about 700GB and this is my primary computer use. Libraries currently live on a 1T Rugged drive and are shared between an 2009 21 iMac and 2010 13MBP. Things are just too slow and I want more screen space. Trying to sort out best use of funds...so, base config looks like this so far:
    3.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5
    16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
    1TB Fusion Drive
    GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5
    In terms of more bang for the buck, does it make  sense to upgrade to:
    3.4 i7   ($200)
    3T Fusion ($150)
    680MX 2G ($150)
    I currently have a 2T USB 3 external and a 3T Firewire external (Time Machine BU). I am thinking, given I need a mobile solution for traveling and working out of home, keeping the libraries on an external would negate the need to upgrade to a 3T fusion. My understadning of Thunderbolt and USB3 is I would not notice the difference working externally or on an internal Fusion-is this more or less correct? Better to spend the money on an external Thunderbolt when they come down a little more?
    680MX is considered a fast gaming card...but might it also "future-proof" (if you can even do that these days!) the mac for graphics requirements to come? Or is it overkill for Aperture and PS? Again-better to spend the money elsewhere?
    I am leaning towards the faster processor. Although I hear  mixed things, the tests I have seen do say this will give an overall boost.
    I would welcome any insights from others who walked this path...
    many thanks
    NJ

    I might be missing something*, but if this is correct:
    My understadning of Thunderbolt and USB3 is I would not notice the difference working externally or on an internal Fusion-is this more or less correct?
    _and_ you need to access your Library from multiple machines in multiple locations, why not just stick with the base iMac configuration you posted and put your Library on your 2 TB USB-3 drive?  As long as you are not putting the Library on the internal drive, I think your thinking here is correct:
    I am thinking, given I need a mobile solution for traveling and working out of home, keeping the libraries on an external would negate the need to upgrade to a 3T fusion.
    I run very large Libraries off external USB-3 drives (mounted to an rMBP w. 16 GB RAM and a 500 GB SSD) and find the performance is no different than when using a large Library that is stored on the SSD.  (I have seen no reason to expect external Thunderbolt drives to be noticeably faster than USB-3.)  I think the 3 TB Fusion makes sense in a laptop; for your stated needs, I wouldn't upgrade (you may have additional storage needs you didn't mention, though).
    I agree with William about the faster GPU -- but just on a hunch.  I think Apple's programmers have gotten expert at getting performance where they can, and one place they seem to look is the GPU.  For Aperture users, I would say about the GPU the same thing one has always said about RAM: when you buy a new machine, put in as much as (or the fastest) you can afford.  Once you have 16 GB of RAM I would spend some money on a GPU upgrade.
    *and if I did miss something, apologies in advance  .

  • Is there a hyperlinked index for Aperture 3 user Guide?

    The hyperlinked User Guide for Aperture 2 was so easy. How do you find information quickly without an index in the Aperture 3 guide?

    I read the PDF document with Preview. Searching is easy, and the contents and cross-references are linked. But it's true that there is no index of terms. Kinda moot with a search feature available, no?

  • Fix for Aperture 3 printing issue for Non-US users - "Value too large"

    Hi,
    I just found a fix to an annoying bug when Non-US customers want to print in Aperture 3.0 and 3.0.1 on their printers:
    If you set the Image Size to "Custom image size" Aperture 3 will complain that:
    "The value xx is too large" !!!, even if the margins are set to a minimum!
    Here's the solution and it's definitely a bug:
    Set your Measurement Units to "US" instead of "Metric" in:
    System Preferences > Language & Text > Formats > Measurement Units: US
    Since I had my Measurement Units in "Metric" instead of "US", Aperture thinks that you enter your values in "Inch".
    So when a Non-US User enters 25cm, Aperture interprets it as 25" inch for a 8"x10" paper size, that's why then it complains that value is too large.
    Yep a bug!! Waiting for Aperture 3.0.2
    Hope this helps

    Some problem here... Have you guys already filed a bug report? If not, please do so, so Apple nows there is this problem. You can file a report from the Aperture >Provide Aperture Feedback menu item.

  • I have the family pack for aperture How does the second user update? it keeps telling me to sign in on the other computer??

    I have 2 computers using aperture. How do I update the second user? It keeps asking for my computer sign in??

    How did you purchase Aperture?  I don;t believe there was ever a 'Family Pack' for Aperture (or any of the Pro Apps for that matter).
    So in order to help we'll need to know how you are trying to install Aperture, where you bought it from and the version.
    regards

  • HT1338 where is the update for aperture to make it work with the updated os x yosemite

    where is the update for aperture to make it work with the updated os x yosemite

    The currently sold version of Aperture at the AppStore, Aperture 3.6 is compatible with Yosemite. 
    See the Release notes: Aperture 3.6 Release notes
    If you are running any version of Aperture 3, you should be able to update to this version.  Does the update not show for you?
    The update has been shown automatically for those who had upgraded from Mavericks and been running Aperture 3.5.1. Other users, who skipped Mavericks and Aperture 3.5.1 have reported problems to get the update to show and needed to contact the AppStore Support. The update did not show, if the users tried to update from an earlier version.

  • My responce to Apple's request to try Photos as an Aperture user

    From what I've seen and read from reviewers regarding the new Photos App, I currently have no interest. Maybe that will change but I am totally dismayed you would completely give up on the professional market and thoroughly dismantle a truly name brand product that professionals like me depended on. I bought a $7000.00 MacPro specifically for Aperture and within two months you announce Apertures demise.
    I also use FCPX and your decision to abandon Aperture has made me rethink why I'm using FCPX. I ask myself, why would the professional video crowd be any more important then the professional still shooters? I can't come up with any plausible reason and so I'm now looking into migrating my entire multimedia workflow over to Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Premier. I don't want to but you have given me no choice. And just think, my computer options will be expanded once I get in to the Adobe ecosystem since they support both OSX and Windows. By the way, I switched from MS-Windows specifically for Aperture. I don't think you have any idea how much disappointment and frustration you have caused your truly loyal Apple base. I'm hopeful you may eventually come to your senses and reverse your decision to kill Aperture.

    Well the phone is where the vast bulk of the (vast) profits are. That's the new reality.
    I don't believe that Apple are 'dropping the desktop', nor do I think that they are trying to lure iOS users to OS X. I think it's a bit more simple than that. They are quietly building up a steady suite of software that
    1. Provides a very similar user experience on OS X, the Cloud and iOS. Moving between the three interfaces retains a similar experiences, even if the OS X version is more capable.
    2. Shares data across the three interfaces so that you can move from device to device effortlessly
    3. Is (and for pro users this is the key point) good-enough-for-most-people
    So, create a doc in Pages on your Mac, switch to a Windows machine and continue working on it in the web browser and then finish it off on your iPad or iPhone later. It's quite a trick when it works. But Pages present an excellent example of an app that's 'good-enough-for-most-people'. Write letters and simple page-layouts and so on. But if you want a complex word-processing document, then you go to a 3rd party vendor - MS, Nisus, Mellel - for a more powerful specialised app to do your job.
    The advantage for Apple is clear. A common suite of apps that work pretty much the same throughout the ecosystem. The user can move effortlessly from one gadget to another and it's all quite seamless. As good middle of the road apps they're relatively easy to maintain and develop. Plus, there is also a healthy aftermarket for 3rd party developers to specialise in. Easy to use Spreadsheet: Numbers. Complex financial planning: Excel. So, Apple are happy, the other vendors are happy developing into a market where they are not competing with Apple.
    This is actually still a better offer for most users than Windows. You still have to buy these apps on Windows, but they're all free on Macs.
    When Apple was in trouble it went after niche markets - video and photography being two - aggressively. Now they don't need to do that. If you're a iPhone photographer (and face it, more people are than are DSLR shooters) then Photos will likely be just what you want. If you're a specialised shooter you need to go 3rd party - LR, CaptureOne whatever.
    Not saying I like this. I'll miss Aperture. And I'd be a nervous FCP or Logic user. But that seems to be what they are doing.

  • Noise Ninja for Aperture has been released

    from the picture code site ...
    +PictureCode today released a plug-in version of Noise Ninja for Apple's Aperture photo editing and management software. The plug-in allows Aperture users to employ best-of-breed noise reduction without leaving the Aperture workflow. The official release is available on the download page.+
    http://picturecode.com/news.htm#MacIntel
    http://picturecode.com/nn_aperture.htm

    with regard to your PS profiles, they will work here ...
    +Noise Ninja includes an automatic profile loader that attempts to select the best matching saved noise profile when you open an image. The automatic profile loader looks for a saved profile that matches the camera model, ISO setting, and image type of each image opened in Noise Ninja. The automatic profile loader looks in two folders when searching for a matching profile. It looks in the main profiles folder that is located under Macintosh HD > Library > Application Support > Noise Ninja for Aperture > Profiles. It also looks in the secondary per user profiles folder under Macintosh HD > Users > Username > Library > Application Support > Noise Ninja for Aperture > Profiles. The automatic profile loader looks at the camera model, ISO setting, and image type encoded into each profile's filename until it finds one that matches the image. If any of this information is missing in the image or in the profile's filename then a match cannot be made. If a match is not found then the automatic profile loader does not select a profile and Noise Ninja runs the automatic profiler to create a new profile from the image itself. You can manually select any saved profile by selecting Choose profile... from the Profile drop-down.+
    you just need to create the folder and drop them in it ... then auto load will work ...

  • A Good Reference for Aperture, Versions, File Names, Changing & Moving

    I was wondering if there is a consensus on a good reference for understanding how Aperture handles files?
    Versions and file names.
    How do you change them in Aperture?
    What happens if you change them in Finder?
    Do I need versions? (can't I just us file names?)
    What about moving the masters, or changing where there are located at in Finder?
    Can I do that in Aperture?
    Can I only do that in Finder?
    Should I never do that in Finder?
    The reason I'm looking for a good reference is because I haven't found one. The user guide (or manual) that comes with Aperture doesn't help with these issues. Search file name and nothing comes back.
    I did get a copy Apple Pro Training Series book for Aperture 3. But I don't think it does a good job explaining how Aperture's file system works, especially in relation to Finder.
    Rather than fill this forum with endless questions (which could be answered by reading the manual and using it the software) I'd like to get a better understanding, from a good source.
    I've only used iPhoto for Mobile Publishing, ATV and now Photo Stream. I don't use it to organize my decades of photos. I don't like having all my photos inside a managed database, which I don't have to do with Aperture. I never understood why you'd want to change the name of a photo in iPhoto, when it never changes the file name. If you send it to someone, after you changed it's name, the other person gets the photo with the original (still in Finder) file name.
    Thanks.

    I never understood why you'd want to change the name of a photo in iPhoto, when it never changes the file name.
    This may help or not but here goes.
    There's a distinction to be made between files and the data they contain. The example I use is as follows: In my iTunes Library I have a file called 'Let_it_Be_The_Beatles.mp3'. So what is that, exactly? It's not the song. The Beatles never wrote an mp3. They wrote a tune, some lyrics, recorded it and a copy of that recording is stored in the mp3 file. The file is just a container for the recording. That container is designed in a specific way attuned to the characteristics and requirements of the data. Hence, mp3.
    Similarly that Jpeg / tiff/ raw/ whatever is not your photo, it's a container designed to hold that kind of data. And along with that data comes opportunities: Metadata, for a start. Exif and IPTC contain vast amounts of information - some it very basic, like the date and time the shot was taken - some of it quite complex, like a lot of details of the settings used in the camera.
    Aperture, iPhoto et al are all about the data and not the file. Import the file and forget about it. Process the image - crop it, fix red eye, run it through the whole gamut of tools in the App and the file never changes at all. Create multiple versions of the image. But there's still only one file. Name it. You name the photo - and that is an entry in the Exif or IPTC. The name of the photo has nothing to do with the name of the file. Because the file is just the tin for the beans.
    Even when you export, unless you specifically choose to export the Master, you are exporting the processed Photo into a different container - that's why you can export Raw as Jpeg, or Jpeg as Tiff. Because the process of export just puts the image into a new container.
    Basically, if you want to manage files you need to use a File Manager. But you're using a Photo manager and expecting it to behave like a file manager.
    And, of course, apps like Aperture and iPhoto have the option to use the Title of the photo as filename on export to the new file.
    Does that muddy the waters?

  • Which Model 13" MBP for Aperture?

    I am a heavy user of Aperture, and keep several other apps open constantly. I currently have a 2010 13" MBP that I've upgraded to 8GB, and it's always running right up against the limit of RAM.
    I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
    I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
    Should I pay up for the top processor, or would the basic 2.5 GHz i5 still give me a boost?
    Will the newer model and SSD give me a big boost, or do I really need to go for a 15" and 16GB? I don't do video, just photos, but I process a lot of them.
    I want the 13" for portability.
    Any advice appreciated.

    SunnyShots wrote:
    I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
    Believe it or not, yes.
    SSD's have limited write capability, likely won't reach it, but if your drive is filled up, then the small space remaining can be exhausted and the 10% of spares used, then your SSD can prematurely die.
    My advice is to get one with at least twice as much space as your ever going to use.
    I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
    Upgrade to a a top end 15" anti-glare instead. The Retina's are overrated, hot blow on the display, and you don't use the resolution its capable of anyway.
    The 15" has a discrete GPU so it keeps the heat off the CPU, it's faster and lasts longer through annual OS X upgrades.
    The anti-glare screen you can see the screen clear in just about any environment, no so with the glossy Retina's.
    I'm very surprised working with photo's you are fast to accept glossy displays, most photographers howl at them because the glare blocks the screen image.
    Get a anti-glare while you still can, it seems Apple doesn't care about the pro market by discontinuing them.
    https://macmatte.wordpress.com/
    But I process a lot of them.  I want the 13" for portability.
    You really need the graphics performance of the 15", the 13" only has Intel HD CPU graphics, equal to your $400 office store PC.
    The slightly extra screen real estate of the 15" is nice, (more so on the 17" but they quit those) no need to sit with the thing on your chest to use it.
    The weight difference is slightly more, your driving a vehicle most likely, either way it's really not a big deal breaker, but the larger screen and better graphics performance is going to come in handy with lots of RAM and a SSD, especially for Aperture and a lot of photo's (I know)

Maybe you are looking for

  • Order of TOC indesign

    Hi! I am having a trouble when creating a table of contents in my document. The order is not the right one. I know this happens because indesign is taking as a reference the order left to right... is there a way to change this order to upper side to

  • HT201471 What is the MD model number of the iPad A1458?

    Is that the 4th generation? Is that the same as the advertised as "retina display?"

  • Anything other than buttons on ALV Grid toolbar?

    Does anyone know if anything other than buttons can be placed on a ALV Grid toolbar, eg. a piece of text or an input field? The filter button for data selection may be too cumbersome/slow for a call centre operator; I want to have a display field wit

  • Convert lwp files to word?

    I've got some old lotus wordpro files I want to open with my mac. Tried it a while back and there was a free program on the net that would do it on a pc but not a mac. any suggestions?

  • Camera Rw 8.7

    Is there a camera raw plug in available for Photoshop E;laments 13 for the new Canon 7D Mark ll